Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Message-ID: <4414@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 90 01:11:04 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 21
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 129, Message 4 of 9


>  Appended is a memo sent to all members of the STC by Vic Toth, who
>  is the STC counsel for regulatory affairs.

So what is the STC, anyway?

Although this piece was quite coherent and reasonable, it did have a
strong internal assumption that universal unblockable CPID is a good
idea.

I also have to wonder at his suggestions, first that the way to make
opposition to CPID go away is public education campaigns to tell
people that every time they make a call, the recipient might receive
the calling number, and second that CPID blocking be offered only to
existing subscribers, not to new or changed ones, as though people who
move somehow have fewer privacy rights than people who don't.  Sheesh.

Regards, 

John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us,
{spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl